I never got pissed off when you asked about "those " words.
I plainly told you where I heard them and the context of which they were used. I never knew the words were unknown and when Dr.Scott used them he immediately explained what they meant. The cancer researcher example was what he said as an example to explain there meaning. I honestly do not know the exact origin of the words. And by no means did I say Dr.Scott coined them, and I am not accusing you of saying that he did. Dr.Scott used those words in the context I already said.
It is just plain hateful and to use this minor controversy as a platform to arbitrarily brand a man with a Ph.D. to be a bullshitter.
You obviously detected that I respect Dr.Scott very much, seeing this you proceeded to say something that hurts. You have hero's whether you admit it or not. Everyone does. I bet your daughters are hero's to you whether you admit it or not.
Rhetorically speaking; how does the use of words that cannot be found on the internet make Dr.Scott a bullshitter ? Is it not logical to give a Ph.D. the benefit of any doubt ?
What Dr.Scott's worst critics cannot accept is how a man with a Ph.D. from Stanford could be a creationist/christian. The two just don't jive. He concluded that Jesus rose based upon the evidence. This is the only reason.
That alumni association that you mentioned -`Dr.Scott has graced the cover of their magazine. You will discover that he enjoys a wide spectrum of respect from every walk of life.
I ultimately would like you to`prove what you say he is making up, and it is just plain chicken shit to say what you said without providing a lick of evidence.